A study found that middle school bans on smartphones do not clearly improve students' quality of life or mental health.

On July 13 local time, online media outlet Gigazine reported that a survey of 20 middle schools in England found little difference in students' mental health and health indicators between schools that restricted smartphone use and schools that allowed it relatively freely.

A research team led by Samuel Perry (사무엘 페리), an applied health scientist at the University of Birmingham, analysed the effects of school smartphone policies on 815 students aged 12 to 15. Of the 20 schools surveyed, 13 banned smartphone use on campus for entertainment, while seven allowed use at certain times and places such as breaks, lunchtime and outdoors.

The team compared students' conditions using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which reflect quality of life and survival time, and mental wellbeing-adjusted life years (MWALYs), a mental health-focused measure.

The analysis estimated that schools with restrictions had slightly higher QALYs and slightly lower MWALYs, but differences in both measures were close to zero and uncertainty was large. Based on this, the team concluded it was hard to say that restrictive smartphone policies raise or lower students' happiness.

The researchers said they did not confirm any major health differences between adolescents attending schools with strict limits and those at schools with more flexible rules. They said restrictions may reduce device use during classes, but evidence remains mixed on whether they improve mental health, physical activity, sleep and academic performance.

On costs, restrictions appeared to have a slight advantage. The team converted staff time spent enforcing smartphone rules into costs, including monitoring student behaviour, recording violations, contacting parents, applying sanctions and holding student meetings. Staff time devoted to phone management was estimated at about 3.1 full-time workers a year at restrictive schools and about 3.3 at permissive schools.

The team judged restrictive policies could cut costs by about 94 pounds (about 187,000 won) per student per year. It said uncertainty was also large for this figure, adding that restrictions may offer a slight advantage for schools but it was difficult to draw firm conclusions about the effect.

The results come as moves to ban smartphones spread in schools around the world. Schools are operating a range of rules, from banning phones from being brought in, to requiring storage during classes, to allowing some use during breaks.

The study had limitations. It was an observational study comparing schools at a specific point in time, rather than a method that tracked before and after policy implementation over the long term. The cost estimates also relied on reports from senior officials at each school and the assessment period was short. This has led to calls for additional long-term follow-up studies to assess the practical effects of restrictive smartphone policies.